Fantasy Freestyle

Mike Trout and Regression Obsession

the archives are now free.

All Baseball Prospectus Premium and Fantasy articles more than a year old are now free as a thank you to the entire Internet for making our work possible.

Not a subscriber? Get exclusive content like this delivered hot to your inbox every weekday. Click here for more information on Baseball Prospectus subscriptions or use the buttons to the right to subscribe and get instant access to the best baseball content on the web.

Like many fantasy players, I spend little if any time during the season worrying about what a player will earn the following year. Even in keeper formats, I don’t invest a significant amount of time trying to figure out future earnings.

While I didn’t have an exact dollar value assigned to Mike Trout for 2013 back in October, I assumed that I’d have him ranked first or second in AL-only formats and first, second, or third in mixed formats. Besides Ryan Braun and Miguel Cabrera, there were few players who seemed capable of putting up big enough fantasy numbers to come close to Trout.

I assumed my thinking would represent conventional wisdom, and that nearly every expert would agree that Trout would be at worst a top-10 player in mixed formats. However, this has not been the case. Although they don’t represent the majority, a number of experts have given Trout a thumbs-down review for 2013. These recommendations have advised anything from moderate to extreme caution with Trout. One expert went so far as to say that Mike Trout would only be the eighth-best outfielder in fantasy this year.

Instead of simply dismissing the anti-Trout crowd as off-base, I thought I’d take a closer look at Trout and determine whether or not the regression argument has any merit.

Mike Trout’s Sophomore Season: Establishing a Baseline

Most of the negativity surrounding Trout has been very vague. Few if any specific examples of comparable players have been provided, and those examples that have been offered have typically been players who don’t fit Trout’s profile in terms of age and/or skillset.

One reason this is the case is that it is extremely difficult to find any players who come close to matching what Mike Trout did during his age-20 season.

With the notable exception of Hoblitzell, this table is a veritable who’s who of all-time greats. While there are several potential career outcomes for Trout, his strong rookie campaign at such a young age is an indicator of a superstar career trajectory, as opposed to that of a good or average one. While Trout might regress, league average rookies like Butch Wynegar or Rick Manning aren’t instructive when attempting to establish a baseline for future performance.

Yet, this is what I suspect some experts are doing. Instead of attempting to isolate Trout based on his skillset and what he has done to date, they are comparing him across the board to all rookies. In one instance, I saw an expert comparing Trout to all players across all age brackets. From an analytical standpoint, comparing Trout to a 28-year-old Danny Tartabull, a 34-year-old Jim Edmonds, or a 30-year-old Joe Torre offers little to no value.

Comparing Trout to the best 20-year-olds ever isn’t ideal, either. Every player in Table 1 is an outlier. As a result, even though Trout sits with this group of players in terms of his performance at this age, that doesn’t mean that Trout is necessarily going to have a Hall of Fame career. However, looking at comparable 20-year-olds is a better way to examine what Trout might do going forward.

If we can agree that it is more sensible to compare Trout to the best 20-year-olds to play the game, then we can dispense with the idea of comparing Trout every single player in the history of baseball and instead look at how he stacks up in his sophomore season against similar 20-year-olds. Did the best all-time 20-year-olds regress to the mean in their age-21 seasons?

The first three columns in Table 2 represent the player, his age-20 season, and his adjusted OPS in that season. The four columns on the right list what the player did in his age-21 season.

Taken in the aggregate, to some degree the data support the idea that even elite hitters are not immune to regression. The hitters here dropped an average of 10 points in adjusted OPS across the board. Additionally, their batting averages, K:BBs, and BABIPs all dropped on average to varying degrees.

However, the slippage for Trout’s age-21 OPS+ comps in batting average, K/BB, and BABIP is slight. Furthermore, while the aggregate data suggest that Trout will slip, there are also individual examples of players who did better in their sophomore seasons.

For the sake of argument, though, assume that Trout will slip from an adjusted OPS of 171 in 2012 to this group’s average adjusted OPS of 147 in 2013. A 147 adjusted OPS would have been good for eighth-best in the major leagues last year.

This is all well and good, but I suspect most of you don’t play adjusted-OPS fantasy baseball. How does this translate to fantasy earnings?

But this doesn’t tell the entire story. Because Trout was called up 23 games into the 2012 campaign, he didn’t play a full season. If Trout had been with the Angels for 162 games, he would have projected to put up 35 home runs, 97 RBI, 57 stolen bases, 150 runs and a .329 batting average in 651 at bats, good for $54. Hence, $54 in earnings represents a more accurate point of departure for discussions surrounding Trout’s value going forward.

The data in Table 2 do not portend significant regression for Trout. But let’s play devil’s advocate for a moment, take Trout’s adjusted 2012 line, and reduce his numbers by 20 percent.

Thirty-five dollars in earnings still would have been good for fourth-best in the big leagues last year, behind Braun, Cabrera, and Andrew McCutchen.

This expectation would fit in well with what Alex Rodriguez, the most modern comparable in Tables 1 and 2, did in his age-21 season. A-Rod went from earning $45 in 1996 to $33 in 1997. A dip into the mid-$30s in earnings has historical precedent and would still put Trout in rarified air.

But what if the naysayers are 100 percent correct? What if all of the doom-and-gloom predictions for Trout are accurate?

One of the more negative Trout prognosticators had this to say about Trout’s potential performance:

“If we are right, and we are a minority of one, then a reasonable expectation for Trout might be 15 HR and .280 BA, with downside on that BA.”

Here are the logical steps I took to bring Trout down to this negative projection:

In terms of pushing Trout down the ranks, now we’re finally getting somewhere. Those pessimistic numbers would have put Trout 10th.

No matter how hard you might try to push Trout down the rankings, it’s next to impossible to drop him too far. In real life, a drop in batting average and slugging percentage would cripple Trout’s value considerably. In fantasy, Trout’s steals are going to be a considerable source of value, assuming that he continues to run.

Table 3 lists 19 players who are age 20-22 comps to Mike Trout based on stolen bases and shows how they did the following year. Based on age-similar stolen-base kings, Trout should more or less maintain his steals. Projecting him for 45 thefts seems fair.

We Are All Regression Candidates

The argument against Trout that intuitively makes the most sense is that the odds of him doing what he did last year are poor. I agree emphatically with this point. In a Rotisserie-style auction, I won’t be placing a $54 or $47 bet on Trout. My stopping point will be lower.

There is a selective flaw in the argument against Trout, though, and it is stunning that no one (to my knowledge at least) has mentioned it even in passing.

Table 4: Performance of Players with $30+ Salaries 2009-2012

Year

# of Players

GAIN

“DRAW”

LOSS

2009

34

3

7

24

2010

27

2

4

21

2011

28

5

2

21

2012

24

2

4

18

TOTAL

113

12

17

84

Table 4 represents the 113 players from 2009-2012 who received an average salary of $30 or more in the three expert AL- or NL-only Rotisserie Leagues (CBS, LABR, and Tout Wars). Players who earned within $3 of their average salary in one direction or the other were put in the “draw” category.

History tells us that Trout is extremely likely to earn less than he did in 2012. But history also tells us that nearly every hitter with lofty expectations is also extremely likely to earn less. Seventy-four percent of all hitters with a $30+ price tag lost money, with a mere 11 percent improving on what they did the previous year.

Conclusion

It is acceptable to assume that Mike Trout will not duplicate or improve upon what he did in 2012. It is not acceptable to assume that Trout is going to fall off the map from a fantasy perspective. Even if his home runs and batting average slip considerably, Trout’s speed will provide plenty of value in the run and stolen-base columns and keep him in the neighborhood of $30. While it is fair to expect Trout to slip, it is unfair to assume that every other player in baseball isn’t subject to the same expectations based upon historical data. Weighting all of these factors, Trout should be one of the top three fantasy targets this spring, and it is difficult to see ranking him outside of the top five overall.

Excellent analysis. My thoughts exactly. Those who don't wish to select Trout within the first couple of picks or spend high $$ on him are missing the point in my opinion; Trout will most likely regress, but his floor is higher than almost any other player in the league due to his speed.

I'd rather have Trout's 20HR and 45SB with a good possibility for more than, say, Votto's 30HR and 100RBI.

I kind of, sort of addressed BABIP in Table 2. I think that Trout's batting average and BABIP are both likely to slip. However, given Trout's overall skill set I think it's possible that he has a higher baseline to work from than an average/above average hitter. His speed should also help him keep his BABIP high even if it does indeed regress. But, yes, I would expect some slippage in AVG/BABIP in 2013.

Great first piece. I have been listening to a lot of experts in preparing for my drafts (particularly my 15-team NFBC draft since Trout will be kept in my other 2 leagues) and trying to figure out where I would be comfortable drafting him. I still probably think I will have him 3rd overall, but in a 15-team NFBC snake draft, I think I would much rather pick in the 7-10 range than in the top 3 anyways.

What do make, if anything, of the report that Trout is up to 240 lbs? Steals seems like the # that would have the least regression, but that's a lot of weight and could impact how much he runs. The steals are what separates him from others that are 5-tool guys IMO.

I am curious as to how many of those 113 players who earned more than $30 in the previous season, did it while missing the first month of the year. I agree he may slip in value on a per game basis, but the added playing time should more than make up for this difference.

Table 4 doesn't represent the players who earned $30 the year before. Rather, it lists the 113 players who cost $30 or more in that auction and reviews how they did.

But, yes, to your point there are very few examples of players that missed a fair amount of time and earned $30. And I agree, the additional games that Trout will play should be taken into account. Part of the exercise above took Trout's 2012 numbers and blew them up over the course of a full season to get a flavor for this.

I guess what I am trying to say is your statement "History tells us that Trout is extremely likely to earn less than he did in 2012" is not true because I seriously doubt many other of those +$30 players missed a month of the season. I'd guess many of the declines the next year were a result of injury.

Trout's baseline is 139 games played. If you gave me an over/under of 139 games played for Trout in 2013, I'd bet the over.

I think you miss a key point. The chance that Trout plays 162 games and is mediocre is pretty small. But what about the chance that he tears his ACL in April and is out for the year (or similar)? To me, that's the biggest risk of any $30+ player - you've put too much of your eggs in one basket.

Table 4 covers some of this ground, albeit in a rough way. Most of the players we expect will earn $30+ will lose their owners money. Whether or not you should spend $40, $35, or even $30 on a player is a discussion worth having (and there are good arguments on both sides), but the primary thrust argument isn't that Trout is worth $40 but rather that nearly every player at the top of the heap is subject to regression and/or injury. If you don't want to pay Trout $40 in an auction format because you believe everyone at that price is a risk, that's a fair point. However, if you want to ding Trout because of injury/regression, you have to ding everyone else as well.